t, 2000, p.783) The author begins with the conceptual analysis of the resistance to change and describes the process of eventual alteration in employee responses. He presents a summary of different literature on this issue with an approach to critique. It finally talks in favor of a bottom up process of evaluating the responses instead of presenting a simple generalization of the concept. For the purpose of reaching his point the author presents certain concepts and categorizations relevant to the issue.
The author introduces the concept of ‘resistance to change’ as, “critical theorists and labor policy scholars argue that the interests of managers should not be privileged over the interests of workers” (Piderit, 2000, p.783). This simplification of the concept overlooks the complex analyses of the responses from the workers. This also overrules the positive intentions behind some negative responses. Complementing this view Pasmore points out that a resistance is actually a product of interaction or communication between the two agents involved in the change process. He also echoes Piderit’s view that a change need not be a ‘bad’ thing. The agent implementing the change should therefore go back to the background and the objectives of the change process rather than simply trying to overcome the resistance (Pasmore, p.214). In this context the role of leadership is worth mentioning. Resistance has to be worked through or managed by the leaders in the ideal manner (Markham, 1999, p.16). Power and Eastman (1997) brings up the role of transformational leadership in bringing about organizational change and determining the course along which the change might occur. Transformation leadership can help in implementing change through articulation of the vision adopted by the leader, the followers or subordinates accepting this vision and an analogy stuck between the interests of the followers and the vision projected before them. The role of leadership in